(Inlexso Innovative Legal Services) awb

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO:  CC64/2016

DATE:  2018-09-14

In the matter between

THE STATE

and

RISHEN RAMPERSAD                                             Accused

S E N T E N C E

BAM, J:   To impose the most appropriate sentence is a difficult task.  The Court must take into consideration the purposes of sentencing.  Firstly, retribution, that is the punishment itself, secondly, deterrence, thirdly, prevention and fourthly, rehabilitation.

             In matters of the serious nature, and this is a very serious case, murder, the purposes of sentence in respect of prevention and rehabilitation, moved to the background.  In other words, the purposes of retribution and deterrence, of more importance.  They act on minimum sentences, prescribes life sentence in cases of murder, where the murder was pre-planned, or premeditated, where the policeman was killed inter alia, whilst executing his duties.

             What we do have here is this, that the murder was indeed pre-planned by the accused and apparently Ms Naidoo.  In other words, it was premeditated.

             The Act on minimum sentences further provides that, I the event of the Court finding that there are, or that there exists substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum, the Court shall impose a lesser sentence.

             Now in considering where such circumstances do indeed exist, the Court has to take into account the personal circumstances of the accused.  In this case, he is a young man, he was about 23 when the crime was committed, he is about 25 now.  He was a policeman.  He has no previous convictions.  According to counsel, he lived an exemplary life and it counts in his favour, it is taken into account.

             But apart from that, the Court also has to take into account the seriousness of the crime, nature and seriousness of the crime.  And murder is probably the most serious crime any human being can commit.

             What the Court must also take into account, is the interest of the community.  And with that, I must also take into account the impact the crime had on the family members of the deceased.  I have heard of at least one family member.  A person who was agitated at the time after the crime was committed.  It is only logical reasoning, brings me to the point.  To find that the effect of a murder on family members is always devastate.  I must find it in this case.

             And accordingly, as prescribed in our law, a sentence must also be victim sentence.  It is of importance to consider that the crimes and nature of this crime, murder especially, that the Court must take into account.  The issue of the community interest and the effect on the family members of the deceased.

             Your counsel has raised the issue of rehabilitation.  I have already remarked that rehabilitation and prevention, the purposes of sentencing, in matters of a serious nature, received into the background.

             Rehabilitation is something that has to be considered by the Court.  It was suggested by counsel that I must take into account in this case, that rehabilitation will amount to a finding that it may be substantial and compelling reason for the Court to deviate from imposing the maximum, or the prescribed minimum sentence, rather.

             It would have been something else, if the accused was in fact a youth.  But he is a man of 23 years old, he was 23 years old.  He was involved in a relationship with Ms Naidoo.

             I think there was something else behind this murder.  I do not know, I am not quite sure what happened there.  It could have been the issue of the relationship the accused had with Ms Naidoo.

             I must also take into account that Ms Naidoo, at that stage when the murder was planned, according to her own evidence, was about 40 years old, she is about 17 years the accused senior.

             Why the accused, a trained policeman became involved in this?  He is not prepared to tell me.  I am not going to speculate about it.

             In my view, the accused' actions in this case, amounts to the actions of a hired assassin.  What motivated him?  And counsel emphasised that point, because of the fact that there is no evidence about any motive.  The Court must take it into consideration.  But I cannot take it into consideration in favour of the accused.  You are not prepared to tell me what happened there.  Maybe it is a good reason, not a good reason, but a motive for the killing, or another motive, I do not know.

             Looking at the objective facts.  I could not find anything.  A Lieutenant Colonel in the police was killed.  He had no chance.  Look at the circumstances of the crime.  The murderers waited for him.  He was unaware of what was going to hit him.  He was not given a chance that he could defend himself.  He was defenceless, he did not have the firearm with him, and what is more, his own firearm was used to kill him.

             In respect of count 2, the robbery of aggravating circumstances, the Act on minimum sentences further to prescribes a minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment.

             I have considered the arguments of counsel and all the circumstances I have mentioned.  And I have arrived at the conclusion that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum sentence pertaining to murder, life imprisonment, and in respect of count 2, 15 years' imprisonment.

             Accordingly the accused is sentenced as follows.  Please rise.  On count 1, you are sentenced to life imprisonment.  Count 2, 15 years' imprisonment. 

             In respect of the firearm, possession of the semi-automatic firearm in Section 3, 15 years' imprisonment.  In respect of the ammunition, 3 years' imprisonment.

……………………………………..

BAM, J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATE:  …………………………….